Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-76115.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: THR: 'Tangled' Tops $150 Million at Domestic Box Office</b></a> <p>In its fifth week Disney "Tangled" crosses the $150 million mark. The film's continued box office growth is primarily attributed to good word of mouth, its the only film of the year to receive an A+ from CinemaScore.</p>
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: I think Rapunzel is much better than Toy Story 3 and much better than How to Train your Dragon and much better than Tron and much better than Howard the Duck!
Originally Posted By basil fan Yes, I believe I liked it better than any of those films, even TS3. Okay, so Dragon is the only other film on your list that I actually saw, and it was good, but not a must-own.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Now... Synergize! Put this in Fantasyland! << Careful there ... or you might get an ugly surprise when IASW gets back from its post-holiday rehab.
Originally Posted By Evening Star How much money does Tangled need to make to turn a profit? It hasn't reached its production cost yet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <How much money does Tangled need to make to turn a profit?> That seems to be a point of some contention around here. Remember, this is domestic (US) box office we're talking about. Still to come is foreign box office, DVD sales, and merchandising (some of which has obviously already happened, but not counted in that $150 million figure). Based on how previous Disney animated films have done overseas (where you estimate the foreign take off the domestic), the rough consensus (if indeed there was one) seemed to be if it did $150M domestic, that would be borderline for profitability once the other factors kicked in. If it made $175 million, that would be a pretty good bet for at least a modest profit. Anywhere in between, and - due to how "creative" Hollywood accounting can be - those who wanted to see it as a success could do so, and those who wanted to see it as a (financial) failure could do so also. Since it's already crossed $150M, my guess is it will finish somewhere closer to $170; and I would further guess that it will do much better than recent WDAS films in the foreign market (due to good word of mouth coming from the US), in DVD sales, since audience response is very good and many will want to own it (though DVD sales are not the profit machine they once were) and in merch. Not Pixar levels, obviously, but very well compared to recent WDAS films.
Originally Posted By Evening Star Ah, I had not looked at Box Office Mojo. As of this post it's made $280 million worldwide. $20 million over production costs, but not taking into account creative accounting.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Well, if only those silly old production cost thingies wouldn't get in the way!! Maybe us cauldron girls will be able to break our agreement to not use magic in the 'real' world by turning all those production costs into a bunch of Krispy Kreme donuts and eat 'em up faster than Pascal can change colors!!!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Okay, so Dragon is the only other film on your list that I actually saw, and it was good, but not a must-own.>> Exact opposite here. I own Dragon and LOVE it! I have no desire whatsoever to own Tangled.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Let's do something to help Rapunzel out, sisters. The movie is already doing so well on it's own with its own brand of magic. We wouldn't have to do much to help it out, really. ORGOCH: Got an itch ta twitch?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<$20 million over production costs, but not taking into account creative accounting.>> There's nothing "creative" about giving the distributor and theater operators a percentage of the revenue. Films need to earn somewhere between 2x and 3x their box office earnings in order for any film to break even. Just because audiences worldwide have paid over $280 mil to see Tangled, doesn't mean DisCo is getting even half of that amount. It all depends on the licensing agreement they negotiated with their distributor.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: You heard the duckling, sisters. We may need to roll up our magic making sleeves a little higher than first thought. ORWEN: Break out the cauldron and start those incantations!! "Tangled gleam and glow!! Let your magic shine!! Make the film a hit!! Bring back the crowds again!!
Originally Posted By Evening Star >>Just because audiences worldwide have paid over $280 mil to see Tangled, doesn't mean DisCo is getting even half of that amount. It all depends on the licensing agreement they negotiated with their distributor.<< I hadn't considered that. Thank you for that bit of information. Here's hoping things go well monetarily in the end.
Originally Posted By andyll <<There's nothing "creative" about giving the distributor and theater operators a percentage of the revenue.>> The creative side is not the % Disney gets but the 260 production costs. That number, reported by the LATimes, includes the scrapped previous Rapunzel projects. If tangled was indeed a completely fresh start then it would be normal to write off the earlier failed projects and let Tangled stand on it's own at about 100-150M
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Hmmm...maybe another incantation is needed then..."Tangled gleam and glow; let the money flow...Fatten up the purse and drop that awful curse!
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>Careful there ... or you might get an ugly surprise when IASW gets back from its post-holiday rehab.<<< I mean a REAL addition. ;-) And post-holday refurb?! WDW doesn't get those.... LOL.
